Because consolidated lawsuits remain separate actions, "it logically follows that consolidation cannot cure defects in either lawsuit." Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2011-00186-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 5145741, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Oct. 28, 2011) (citing McMillin, 2009 WL 749214, at *3 ). The developers' appeal of the order of dismissal in the circuit court case does not constitute an appeal of the chancery court case. Without an appeal, the chancery court order became a final judgment thirty days after it was entered.
The consolidation of cases does not merge them into one action, it merely allows us to hear multiple cases at the same time.Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2011â00186âCOAâR3âCV, 2011 WL 5145741, at *3 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 28, 2011) (âConsolidation âdoes not create one action.â Two (or more) consolidated lawsuits remain separate actions.â) (citations omitted); Webb v. Poynter, No. 02A01â9707âCVâ00168, 1999 WL 145257, at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Mar. 18, 1999) (â[A]n order of consolidation simply has no other effect than to hear the cases thus consolidated at the same time, but that the issues remain precisely on the pleadings as they were before, and between the same parties, and are to be determined exactly as if the cases had been heard separately.â (citation omitted)).
A panel of this court affirmed the dismissal because "Lawsuit 3 was not filed within the statute of limitations." Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2011-00186-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 5145741, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).
A panel of this court affirmed the dismissal because "Lawsuit 3 was not filed within the statute of limitations." Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2011-00186-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 5145741, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).
We will not reverse the trial court's decision to hear the petition and motion for sanctions in the same hearing unless the court improperly used or abused its discretion, resulting in an injustice or injury to the Garvins. See Van Zandt v. Dance, 827 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (appellate court reviews trial court's decision regarding consolidation of cases for abuse of discretion); Givens v. Vanderbilt University, 2011 WL 5145741, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2011) (use of the word "may" in Rule 42.01 means the trial court has discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate). Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court's ruling